Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

dave writes "I founded and managed Linux Today in 1998, bringing it up from nothing into the most powerful and large Linux news website in the world, in less than a year. I am now calling on the Linux community to boycott my creation until its current owners stop accepting money from Microsoft to publish blatantly anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft ads."

I was shocked to find the very same ads mentioned in the article on this site a while back. I've always thought of/. as a very pro-linux community...let alone the OSDN, who, I'm assuming serves the ads.

agreed, I've been noticing the "informative" ads on here recently regarding TCO of MS vs Linux and all sorts of other make me gag FUD, but I was wondering just how much control the people selling the ad-space (i.e. Linux Today and/.) have in the content, vs the ad buyers who can possibly dictate which websites they get served on... I have no experience in this arena, but I imagine it isn't a terribly far stretched idea to see a request of ads on certain websites from ad time buyers..

I agree, but let's be practical. Microsoft is one of the biggest advertisers on the internet today. They have real money. If you're going to boycott LinuxToday, you're also going to need to boycott the OSDN which runs many of the same ads.

If you're
going to boycott LinuxToday, you're also going to need to boycott the
OSDN which runs many of the same ads.

Hmmm. Has/. has signed on to the boycott? Notice that there's no link [linunxtoday.com] to the 'offending' site? (Remember, a couple days or so ago, a/. story helpfully provided a link to slashdot.org.)

I would personally take ads from Microsoft or Google, or anyone who wanted ads on any of my web sites. The more the better. It's not really an issue of integrity. It's an issue of getting paid. I like getting paid. It supports things like my smoking habit, and my patch habit, and my food and shelter habit. These things might not sound important if you're living with mom, but trust me. These are the things that matter.

Hey wouldn't it be funny if/. or Linux Today posted the Microsoft ads, but allowed comments on them? That would be a riot. In fact, you might even be able to work out a deal with the beast where their own people can post anti Linux comments to go along with the ads. It would be funny to shoot them down, and it would support the open source community.

We live in a free country. You can be as stuffy as you want to be. You can even get a gun and move to the hills if you have the resources and inclination to do so. That's the beauty of it really.

But when you run a web site, especially a community supported one that does not produce that does not produce a tangible product that can be sold, resold, or otherwise generate recurrent revenue, there are certain financial and mathematical realities that come into play.

When you're talking about money, real tangible money that you earn by providing valuable ad space on your tangible web sites to tangible sponsors, you are receiving something you find valuable in exchange for that space, which otherwise would not generate any revenue.

That is the key. If you do a cost benefit analysis on a site like this based on real world factors and common sense taken into account; you will find that the time spent developing and maintaining such a site is directly proportional to success and usefulness the site. No one, is going to run a web site like this or Linux Today full time, if it doesn't make financial sense to do so. We all need to make a living, unless of course we're too good to work.

Sure, it would be nice if people who had the resources chose to do a neat little out of the kindness of their hearts, and some do, I'm not knocking that either. So you can reign in that high horse a little.

Ideally, you want to refrain from offending your user base through pop up ads or spam, which aren't very useful to begin with considering that most of us block that anyway. So what does that leave you with?

You may be interested to know that convicted felons are everywhere. There are literally millions of them. They usually work lower paying jobs or start businesses for themselves. Many of them live perfectly honest life styles after paying their debt to society. That's how it works.

There's no ethical way around that, nor should there be. And there's nothing ethically wrong or illegal about dealing with said person or entity if you choose to do so. And if they're not posting anything illegal, profane, or obscene on your web site, there really shouldn't be any ethical problem at all.

You need to lump Google and Microsoft together, because they are both asking you to do the very same thing in this case. They are asking for that tangible ad space that you need to make money with. It's that same space that they would like to use to sell their product on. It's not your fault that Microsoft's marketing department has a sense of irony, and can afford to throw money out the window on advertising that is not properly targeted at a useful client base.

If your buying a book about Linux, or Unix in general with an aim to deploying something, you do realize that Microsoft IS an alternative solution. Amazon and Microsoft have done nothing wrong. Your searching for a book on say Operating Systems, guess what category MS falls into.

Stop whining about everything, it makes you sound like little children throwing a temper tantrum when things don't go your way.

I find the call for a boycott astounding. Do we not want people to try the different options available to them and decide which is superior?

Are we so unsure of the superiority of Linux that we believe that a simple banner ad could derail that process of testing and deciding? All the banner ads in the world won't change the basic truths of how things work. I use WinXP at work, because that's what they choose. I use RedHat at home, because that's what I choose. More information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions.

Sorry, you're making a fundamental mistake if you think this boycott is wrong. Yes, people should be free to pick and choose, and compare Linux to Windows and choose Windows if they think it's better, and to say so, publicly, and in advertisements. And people should also be allowed to boycott sites companies or products that they don't like. And they should be allowed to do it even for such illogical reasons as "I love Linux, and I hate Windows". Just smile, shake your head, and go on about your day. You don't have to agree, nor does that make them wrong. Just two different, and perfectly valid, opinions.

Yes, two different, and perfectly valid opinions. It always seems unfair when one side appears to be more honest than the other (at least to me) and the honest side then loses the race. A friend recently commented that conservatives are always going to win because they have perfected the art of non-accountability. I think he was referring to the party designated as R on C-span but this could equally apply to dishonest ad sponsors.

Are we so unsure of the superiority of Linux that we believe that a simple banner ad could derail that process of testing and deciding?

You're missing the point, we're not scared of the TCO studies, we know them to be FUD, and could easily explain how and why to a boss/etc. The problem is that having ads that promote Microsoft at the cost of Linux on a Linux news site gives the impression of lack of confidence in the content on that site. If you were a pointy-haired boss and your IT guys wanted you to read an article on Linux Today and you see those ads panning Linux are you going to be swayed by the article any at all? Most likely not, as the ads have given you the preconceived notion going into the article that Linux costs more than the Microsoft stuff you're already using.

In fact most PHBs would probably see the ads and not bother reading the article.

One amendment which unfortunately invalidates your point... on this subject at least:

"More information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions."

More ACCURATE and CORRECT information is always better than less information when it comes to making decisions.

The problem is that these ads point to false and doctored information. When a CEO is going to linuxtoday because he's being asked to make a multi-million dollar switch and wants to have a peek at what he's buying... well there's nothing wrong with him seeing accurate information from both sides. But when he goes to linuxtoday and sees links to slander published by Microsoft... that's pretty serious. To the level it should be illegal and may well be an abuse of their monopoly.

Microsoft isn't actually allowed to do anything to support or encourage their own status as a monopoly after all.

While/. is primarily pro-linux, Linux is not it's entire reason for being. Information of all types for Nerds is given, including but not limited to Oracle, IBM, your rights on-line, hardware, gaming, PDA's etc.,etc.

LinuxToday is "only" a Linux site. Accepting moneyfrom a biased source to provide FUD is insulting to the community that the site is directed at.

I accept the/. presentation of the Microsoft FUD because this isn't a Linux only site.

Well, let's first start with what a boycott is supposed to achieve. The intent of a boycott is to make a manufacturer, publisher, or other organization changes its practices by hurting it financially if it doesn't. If you remember the boycott against Nestle over baby formula advertising, you'll recall that people were upset that their advertising strongly implied (if not outright stated) that formula was better than breast milk for babies. Nestle was hardly alone in that, but as probably the biggest player in the market, they became the lightning rod for the criticism.

The trouble with that implying that formula is better, besides the fact that it's simply untrue, is that baby formula needs to be mixed with water. However, in many of the developing countries where they were aggressively marketing formula, both sources of adequately clean water and knowledge of basic practices like boiling the water to make it clean and then using it immediately, refrigerating mixed formula and how long it can be kept, etc., were very scarce. However, the advertising campaigns showing pictures of fat, healthy, smiling babies (in countries where skinny, undernourished babies with inadequate medical care were common) was highly effective. A lot of formula was being needlessly sold to poorly informed parents. The sale of formula is not in itself wrong, of course, nor is formula. Some mothers do not have their milk come on and could not feed their babies without formula. Others don't have enough milk, especially if they have twins or triplets. In those cases, formula is literally a life-saver.

However, because of the scarcity of proper information as to how to properly prepare and store formula, and of its relative value Vs. breast milk causing it to be bought needlessly, many babies were becoming sick, and quite a few dying, as a result of being fed on formula instead of breast milk. Not to mention, of course, that formula is expensive and many poor people were being led to buy it unnecessarily. I used to live in SE Asia and both my kids were born there. Imported, western-brand formula was about 1/3 the price it is here in the U.S., but the average national income where I was living is about $100/month. It was more in the large cities, of course, but that gives you some idea of the relative cost of baby formula.

Now, if you look at a can of baby formula in poor countires, it has instructions on how to prepare formula and boil water written in the local language, and it also states clearly on the can that breast milk is best for your baby.

The boycott worked because a lot of people refused to buy any Nestle product. This hurt Nestle financially and they modified their practices to satisfy their critics and the boycott was called off.

Now, let's relate this to your use of privoxy.

You never see the ad./. gets the money. Why do they get the money? B/c no one knows you never see the ad (unless they are paid on click-through, in which case they wouldn't get paid anyway unless you clicked the ad). That's problem one.

Problem two is that the ads aren't aimed at you. You are convinced. The ads are aimed at people who are on the fence or who are currently using Windows but are curious about alternatives such as Linux. You can rest assured that most of them are not using an ad blocker. So, they see the add, some may click through, and some of those will buy into the FUD and the advertiser's intent is achieved: a potential defector from Windows to Linux was stopped.

Now, the founder of Linux Today doesn't seem to get how to boycott, either. If you want to effectively boycott a publication (either Internet-based or paper-based, it doesn't matter), you need to do these things:

1) Write to them and tell them you are boycotting their publication and all of its advertisers, and tell them why;

You could not physically be more wrong. Recently, one of the larger television stations refused to air one of MoveOn.orgs advertisements. Political reasons. As we all know, Disney also refused to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. The list could go on and on. One person's FUD is another person's truth. You can't like free speech when it works for you, and hate it when it doesn't. It's as simple as that. Who decides what's truth here? You? What if Microsoft is actually right? And if you think that's anything other than a rhetorical question, you've missed the point entirely.

No, you don't have to be silent about your disagreeing with one person's representation of the truth, but asking an entire community to boycott a website due to the advertisements which it runs is a dangerous, dangerous slide into the sort of polarity we see in the United States today.

He can ask the community anything he wants. That's free speech. If the community chooses to do it, that's democracy.

If free speech that can promote democracy is dangerous, then I want to live on the edge.

I loved the book Fahrenheit 451, but I've been boycotting Disney for years, so would never buy the documentary. ROFL!! If you think Moore's documentary is so critical it MUST get out, then you obviously didn't read the 451 book he titles it after, or it didn't sin

But, this is democracy in it's purest, not centralized government control.

He's asking individuals to make an individual choice. You are free to choose who you patronage, and you are free to not be influenced by his article or his request that you consider offering your patronage elsewhere, presumably Linux sites that don't host anti-linux slogans.

He's not asking a central dictator to pass a law forbidding free speech.

It's possible to stop free speech not only with too little message but also with too much noise.

No person can interpret every message out there. Large corporations can and do try to crowd out alternative points of view by the sheer volume of their message. Look at Coca-Cola/McDonalds. How many Coke/McD ad's have you seen? The purpose of their ad's is not to inform you of something you already know but to crowd out the competition's viewpoint. Mindshare is everything.

Having said that I have no problem with open source web sites taking M$ money for limited banner ad's because as long as they are not lying it presents a valid, alternative point of view.

Not surprisingly microsoft.com doesn't allow quid pro quo for exactly that reason. Because M$ presents an unbalanced viewpoint I have no problem with sites like slashdot trying to balance that out.

I have a big problem with the astro-turfers though - they should do jail time for fraud.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

You're absolutely right. In fact, I'm offended that the people from OSDN are refusing to put up ads for date-rape drugs and the fine establishments offering ads for baby killing and the beating of old ladies. How dare they not accept money from someone claiming something about "principles" or "ethics". Don't they know that money is all that's important?

Why should they refuse ads from Microsoft? Aren't the readers smart
enough to make up their own minds about the benefits of Linux? This
reminds me of a recent "outrage" when The Nation [thenation.com] ran some full-page ads for
Faux News [foxnews.com]. Most of their readers
just laughed at Fox for throwing their money away.

I'd rather that organizations who sell ad space have less editorial control. For instance, Adbusters [adbusters.org] and the MoveOn PAC [moveon.org] have repeatedly been denied airtime on network TV, even though they are able to pay for it, simply because the network execs don't like their message. This is a far greater injustice.

A bunch of people calling on a boycott against a website for accepting money from a rival company. They do this by posting on a website that accepts money from the same rival company and sticks their big ads everywhere. This from the "free speech" community.

Once again you missed the point entirely. Slashdot is not a "Linux only" site. It is what they say it is, "News for Nerds". Linux Today on the otherhand is a "Linux only" site. It is just plain stupid and/or greedy to place anti-linux ads on a sit

The slashdot community is pro-linux. But this isn't about the community, this is about ads. The ads reflect the advertiser running them. They aren't necessarily endorsed and loved by the editors of the site. Dave Whitinger seems to believe that the fact that an ad is run means that the site supports or endorses it. This is ridiculous. If this were the case, it would mean that every advertisement would be paying for the editors of the site to endorse the product advertised. That's not what we want. Ads should not be a reflection of the views of the site; encouraging us to view them as such threatens the site's integrity by tying its content to the identity of its sponsors. It's better to create a clear separation between the sites editorial views and the money given by advertisers, so that we believe the views we are getting are unbiased. Telling us to treat the sites ads as paid endorsements works against that goal.

I believe there's a difference between ads selling a product or service that is unpopular, and ads that deliberately spread fud to counter the purpose and energies put into the community the site supports.

Would you want to support a pro-life site that had advertisements for Planned Parenthood? How about a cancer victim support site with cigarette ads?

You think open source is a product? Linux was here long before RedHat arrived on the scene.

Open source, to many people, is a philosophy, not a product.

In the early days of the Internet, before 99% of corporate managers heard of it, and most of the public didn't know what it was either, we discussed how to share code and its potential impact on society, now that we could transmit it anywhere in the world for free instantly, without any geographic barriers.

If Microsoft wants to advertise on a website with a anti microsoft stance, what does it hurt for that website to take the money?

It does no harm at all. I always laugh around election seasons when candidates start running radio ads. There is a local conservative station, and last election cycle Ellen Taucher (democrat) was running ads on that station nonstop. The radio station cannot say no to the ad, because politicians have written the law so you can't say no to their ads, and they get a cut rate too.

Oh and to the people who shrugh the lies and damned lies in these Microsoft ads as so blatantly false that anyone will see them as what they are, remember, if you repeat a lie long enough, people start believing it. We cannot leave such lies uncontested.

I founded and managed Slashdot from its inception to the present, bringing it up from nothing into the most powerful and large Linux news website in the world. I am now calling on the Linux community to boycott my creation until its current owners stop accepting money from Microsoft to publish blatantly anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft ads.

But what about those who are just venturing into the Linux world and are just getting thier feet wet. There are a lot of those and they don't understand it all yet.

Oh, the poor little babies! We shall have to hold their hands and make sure the big bad Microsoft doesn't molest them! Your benevolent uncle will show you the way!

Good Lord! This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Those "just venturing" into Linux already have a clue and can protect themselves from M$ FUD. I love this "just venturing" crap, it's like saying when you go down to the strip and pick up hoes' and have them paddle your ass, your "just venturing" to see if you like sex. "just venturing". Good grief.

Not neccesarily. But I can see the validity in the point of "how can we trust them to post unbiased reviews when they are funded by Microsoft"

I don't patronize the site personally, but I could see (in theory) how M$ could say, "well, we see that you're posting this negative stuff about our product, we think we'll pull out those ads..." and if they're counting on those ad dollars for funding, well, it isn't pretty.

Or, perhaps Microsoft said to themselves, "They're publishing negative articles about our products, let's put some adds up to negate the effect." In that case, it would be in LW's best interest to continue being negative about Microsoft products, lest Microsoft no longer have a need to place adds there.

Or, here's another theory I think is even more plausible:

Microsoft certainly doesn't post to/. because of all the nice things slashdotters have to say about them. If I had to guess, I'd say they place the adds because they look and they see that/. is mostly read by people that use their product. Thus, by placing adds on/. they can target potential switchers. I would imagine the same is true of LW.

Overall, I don't think LW has any reason to be pro-microsoft, even with the adds.

But I can see the validity in the point of "how can we trust them to post unbiased reviews when they are funded by Microsoft

Ok, let's assume that the Microsoft revenue goes away. How can you trust them to post unbiased reviews when they're funded by Redhat? Or Suse, Mandrake, Sun, IBM. LoneTar (is that thing still around?), whatever?

This is a classic problem, one that affects every magazine that accepts advertisements and does reviews. And there's no real answer, short of what Consumer Reports does -- don't accept ads. Except that magazines like to show a profit, and ads are a good way to do that. The other ways, raising your prices or accepting donations, is iffy at best. It doesn't even work for PBS -- even PBS shows commercials (sort of) for their advertisers now.

Ultimately, if you're actually reading `Linux Today', you can probably already see through the Microsoft FUD. So I have to respond to dave (Mr Linux Today founder) with a `No, I'm not going to boycott Linux Today just because they run Microsoft ads. Sorry.' (Of course, I haven't read Linux Today in a long while, so my lack of boycott hardly means anything.)

So, how did dave lose control of Linux Today? Did he sell out in the height of the dot-com craze? (Like everybody else did?) If so, crawl back to your Porche, drive back to your nice, paid off already house, and stop whining.

Do you honestly believe Microsoft would spend the money on the ads if they didn't believe it could help their goal?

One of human nature's biggest flaws is that if we hear a lie enough times, we'll believe it. This has been proven over and over throughout history. It's like chinese torture, only with words instead of drops of water.

It isn't intelligence that protects people. It's love for truth and the willingness to continue to resist believing lies no matter how tiring it can be. The line is easily

Agreed. I think it's great that Microsoft likes to support pro-Linux magazines and web sites. Everytime I see one I chuckle to myself. "Suckers. No one here is going to be swayed by your ad, but thanks for spending the money anyway!" If anything, Microsoft's need to advertise in Linux channels helps legitimize Linux (as though that hasn't already been done.)

I think you hit the nail on the head inadvertanltly as to why this is a problem. Since Linux has already been legitimized, and since Linux's reach into the world of the consumer is increasing every day, more and more non-geeks / average users will be visiting pro-Linux sites.

When that happens, the advertising will be reaching the likes of those who are not zealots and will be susceptible from advertising from a competitor. If Microsoft is able to make its case against Linux in those ads, those are poten

When that happens, the advertising will be reaching the likes of those who are not zealots and will be susceptible from advertising from a competitor. If Microsoft is able to make its case against Linux in those ads, those are potential converts that will be adversely swayed in their decision.

So we have made a religion of our O/S and become cultists who must shield our new recruits like children from any subversive outside influences. Welcome to Linux as the new Scientology.

do they pick the ads or are they through a service? i am not sure if it makes it any better.... but for example if you get ads from google and are a tech related site i am sure you will be hit with M$ ads as well as whatever else.

This seems like a rather harsh approach to take against LinuxWorld, and somewhat childish as well. How do we know that Microsoft is specifically paying for advertisement on LinuxToday, and not just blanket advertising on internet.com?

And then does that mean that we should boycott/. because they often display M$ ads? Or maybe anti-Linux people should boycott Windows-centric sites when they feature advertising from RedHat or Sun.

Seems to me like the best option to take would be to urge LinuxToday to not support M$ advertising if they are indeed given a choice on what they advertise, instead of just boycotting them out of anger.

I agree. Its knee-jerk reactions like this that give Linux a bad name.

Two words for you guys:
GROW UP!

You are taking away money from the competition, and putting ads on a page that most people ignore anyway. This isn't something to get your panties in a bunch about. Go argue about which editor or distro is the best... it'll make you feel better;-)

Taking a resource away from someone only matters if they have a finite amount of it.

So, for instance, if you at war in a desert, doing something to make a water supply unusable to the enemy would be a tactically sound move. However, if you were at war in the Canadian praries destroying some wheat really isn't going to hurt the opposing force. There is a lot of wheat up here.

Microsoft has over 53 Billion dollars in cash and short term assets. Thats Billion with a B. Taking a couple hundred, or even thousan

I've seen a lot of these ads. Their comparison between windows servers and linux servers is really stupid. It's the same tricks that many companies use: compare with different hardware specs, unoptimized kernels/applications, and don't take into account viruses and other related issues. It's not right and I really do get sick of seeing them on OSDN and other networks.

That being said, I understand that OSDN and other sites do need revenue. I also think that most linux users realize the ads are bunk. Rather than a boycott, I'd like to see pro-Linux advertisement in the same way (with real stats) that shows the advantages of linux over windows.

How about graphs comparing: Infection rate, loss due to downtime, webpage serving stats with optimized machines on the same hardware, etc?

I sympathize with his points, and it's not just LinuxToday. I received the July 2004 (odd enough, that) copy of Dr. Dobbs Journal and thought "wow, it's really getting to be pretty thick". Then I realized that the middle 40% of the magazine was a long Microsoft advertisement. After ripping that out, there wasn't much left - except for 4 different articles on Java-to-COM-and-ActiveX bridges. Crikey.

Personally, I enjoy seeing a Microsoft ad. Why? Because they just paid for something that was completely and utterly wasted. Seriously. Bring it on. Gives me something to laugh at and costs Microsoft money, it doesn't get much better than that.

Personally, I enjoy seeing a Microsoft ad. Why? Because they just paid for something that was completely and utterly wasted. Seriously. Bring it on. Gives me something to laugh at and costs Microsoft money, it doesn't get much better than that.

Now that you mention it... I'm gonna start enjoying those Pepsi ads more.

The problem though isn't when geeks come to Linux sites, but when curious corporate IT managers visit.

Managers used to say, "no one ever got fired by choosing IBM." Today they say, "no one ever got fired by choosing Microsoft."

They don't need truth as much as they need to be able to justify choosing Microsoft or Linux, and the ads give them the justification to continue to take a "safe" position that will be hard to blame problems on.

Sounds like a bunch of hot air to me. If MS wants to run an ad with their (biased) study of TCO vs Linux, let them. Trust the readers to be smarter than that. Linux represents choice and freedom, not censorship or religion.

...then more fool them. As long as "Linux Today" does not allow advertisers to interfere with its content, either directly or indirectly, I don't see an issue.

I read nothing in the complaint to suggest that Linux Today's content has been compromised by these adverts. Instead, the entire complaint seems to be purely that Microsoft advertises, and the advertising itself is Linux-hostile.

That's fine. And I expect most readers will ignore what Microsoft has to say, but be delighted they're funding Linux.

You found a good place to complain. Slashdot runs Microsoft adds about how "mainframe Linux" is so much more expensive than Windows. The adds even site a study that was thouroughly discredited in slashdot news stories.

Slashdot has the same exact anti-Linux, pro-Microsoft ads. I've tried bringing this up, but was rejected.

Imagine if it read like this:"I'm now calling on the Linux community to boycott Slashdot until its current owners stop accepting money from Microsoft to publish blatantly anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft ads."

I personally would call upon the community to click every Microsoft ad they see. They get cheap advertising if nobody clicks on them. And they're not going away if you don't. Microsoft is definitely the high bidder on most of our sites.

Seriously, so what of Microsoft is anti-Linux. The Linux crowd has been anti-Microsoft for a hell of a lot longer. MS is just trying to catch up, and surprise: they're throwing money your way while they do it.

I want to know if this guy has even got in touch with Linux Today in regards to this "controversy." He doesn't mention anything about talking to them, asking them rationally to do something about the Windows ads. It just looks like he's flying off the handle irrationally, and that really detracts from the point he's trying to make.

replace their lost ad revenue yourself? At least offer them an alternative before you start deriding them for doing something. Oh, and where the hell do YOU get off selling your creation and then acting as if you have a say in it after that, you dont, you gave it up for money so dont preach to me.

The publishing business is rough. You have to do what you have to do. I read Maxim magazine. They have a huge circulation, are very popular, they get plenty of advertisers, and yet they have to run cigarette ads because they buy some of the most expensive ad slots. What can you do? Ads ultimately are just offering consumers a choice. And these aren't tobacco ads; MS just uses some very agressive/slightly illegal marketing tactics. This isn't selling a product which is known to be addictive and cause cancer.

What's wrong with Microsoft? They make some truly great software (Office) which runs fine on Linux [codeweavers.com]. I'm a 100% Linux desktop user, and guess what, I buy Microsoft software to run on my Linux box! I don't have a Windows partition either.

We're all techies here, right? We all believe that technology products should be evaluated on their merits. Does that somehow not apply to Microsoft products? If Microsoft ____ is the best solution for a given application, shouldn't we acknowledge that? Again, this is from a 100% Linux desktop user, who has been a 100% Linux desktop user for years, even back in the old painful days when the best browser was Netscape 4.something. Now I have Mozilla, IE and Konqueror to choose from, all on one desktop, and I chose based on their merits.

Why in the bluest blazes of hell would we stop reading Linux today? Why is eveything so, "Linux or bust" I personally use them both and I like them both. Linux has its uses as does Windows and for some things I like using Windows more. Get a life its advertising as the previous readers have said the readers will decide for themselves what they want to use.

Way back in the 90s, my brother banded together a bunch of his friends to start a company and put up a web site. It eventually became one of the leaders in it's field with millions of hits per day (it's a sports site that is now run by one of the big television networks). My brother's a big proponent of open source, he's got an ultra-low Slashdot ID (less than 100), the web sites he's built have all been done under Linux and Perl, and has contributed to various open source projects pretty extensively (eg, xemacs, mysql). When the web site was just big enough to attract advertising, they made a $2000 booking from Microsoft, and I admonished him for doing business with the devil. He replied, "yeah, but the money's flowing in the right direction."

Who among us wouldn't rather money flow from Microsoft rather than to them, especially when the recipient is an open-source advocate?

Microsoft (theoretically) makes more than $2000 from that advertisement. A well-run company will always try to do two things: lower expenses and raise revenue. When a company decides to spend money, it (again, theoretically) only does so if it expects to make more money back as a result. ROI isn't just a TLA.

That being said, it's impossible to tell how much money Microsoft made from your brother's site. But just because Microsoft is spending money doesn't mean they're losing money.

Microsoft (theoretically) makes more than $2000 from that advertisement.

Are you sure? Advertizing bathing suits to Eskimos doesn't necessarily guarentee a return on that money.

The website for Linux Today is very blatantly about Linux. Linux users have a high probability of being anti microsoft.

While I think the chance of pissing off Linux readers is very high and thus losing readership, thus losing hits, thus losing money, I also think such an add has a very small possibility of dragging people away f

I really don't get upset by the M$ ads in Linux Magazine or on Linux Today. (GWB's negative tv ad's for his re-election irk me more).Let Bill bankroll Linux web sites and magazines with ad's that Linux people will just laugh at. If they are foolish to take out a centerfold magazine ad, use it to wrap fish!

Boycott a site because it runs ads (likely served by an outside provider) that you don't like?

I realize it's a sore subject when you bring up capitalism within a community that shouts FREE from the top of its lungs, but your request bothers me. Are you afraid that LinuxToday users are going to convert to Windows because of a banner ad? Or that Microsoft is going to influence those masses of Linux users?

I'm calling bullshit here. This guy sells his site to someone else to generate a profit. He then proceeds to bitch and moans when the current owners sell add space, also for a profit, and an add apears that the he doesn't agree with. It's complete and total bullshit.

If he really cared about that site he wouldn't have sold it. Instead, he sells out to some corporate whore and then has the audicity to bitch and moan when said corporate whore, acting as all corporate whores do, sells out by selling add space to some other corporate whore who spreads FUD. Newsflash buddy, you sold out just the same as the current owners are selling out.

I have no problem with people who start something and then sell it. It's called capitalism baby, but don't bitch and moan when whoever buys it does something you don't like. You sold the thing, if it was that important you shouldn't have sold it, but you did, so shut up and move on.

Flame me all you want, but things like this tick me off. Oh and don't give me this "but the spirit of the site is being violated" crap. If he cared so much about the spirit of the site, as I've said over and over again, he wouldn't have sold it.

OK, I work for Slashdot, but am not writing in any official capacity:)

- Slashdot takes advertising.

- Some of the advertising Slashdot takes is from Microsoft.

- Microsoft advertising is paid for in U.S. dollars.

- The editorial side neither sells the ads nor chooses the advertisers; whether the ad at the top is for Microsoft, Red Hat, or The Estate of Jonas Savimbi, I'm just as surprised as anyone else by the particular banner that appears.

Above is just to point out that the ad-choice decision is not one I make;)

However (But! Nevertheless!), I don't think it's all that important anyhow. So long as ads are respectful of your browser (I hate Flash ads, and it goes without saying that no one is friends with popup ads or other eye-pokers), their content doesn't concern me a whole lot. (Could there be exceptions? Yes. But the MS ads I've seen on Slashdot, for example, have been tame as a churchmouse. Most of them don't even rise to the level of puffery, more straight 'product exists' notification.)

Ads for Microsoft Visual Studio appear on Slashdot; a lot of readers use that or similar products in their work. Ignoring the possibility that readers use source-secret software would be dumb on the part of the advertisers; they would be ignoring a rationally valuable resource. I'd prefer that people use more free, Free software --and they will. But I'm confident enough that people will choose open source stuff on their own for their own reasons that I don't think advertisements for The Other Kind are a huge concern. What would it say if they were? (Solar and wind power is great; there are still ads for gasoline generators in the back of Mother Earth News.)

I like seeing IBM and other companies push their open-source agendas (parallel and connected to their other agendas) in ads and other forums, but here, too, I don't think advertisements matter except as an input; people will still make up their own minds based on multiple, sometimes ineffable factors.

As at least one other poster has commented, wouldn't you rather the money flowed this direction than the other?

Website turns desperate and runs ads counter-intuitive to what it promotes

Guy who is opposed to ads on formerly his website asks people to boycott website until they stop running the ads which aim to hurt their own cause

What's next, boycott leading to lost revenue from unsold ads and then website closes? Does he really want the website to go out of business rather than serve offensive ads?

And what does it say that Microsoft are the only ones willing to run Linux related ads? By boycotting Linux Today and ensuring it closes (which it probably will since thanks to less readers no one else will want to advertise there) won't people just be hurting the cause they aim to achieve?

And doesn't this guy realize that by this kind of outburst he's just promoting the "Linux Terrorist/Zealot" image?

"I founded and managed Linux Today in 1998, bringing it up from nothing into the most powerful and large Linux news website in the world, in less than a year."

Let me continue this silly thought...

"...I then sold Linux Today to internet.com for shitload of cash. I am told that they no longer lube the server transitors with tofu. I promise to donate the shitload of cash internet.com paid me for Linux Today to starving programmer / gamers in the inner-city."

The audacity to pay you to express their opinions, and not only that, but opinions that say mean things about your favorite operating system!!

When will the madness end.

Seriously, you don't have a right not to be offended, and being offended about the OS wars is about the lamest thing evar. As long as the ads are clearly labeled, they should be accepted. Rather then calling for a boycott, write articles explaining why the ads are misleading. M$ will probably pull them themselves if you do. If there's editorial pressure to change the content to better suit the advertisers, then there's a problem. And that should be the problem discussed.

Slashdot runs Microsoft ads, there are lots of people who like working on both windows and Linux (shock, horror!)

Oh well, whatever. I have a suspicion that this boycott will fail miserably.